Introduction
Controversies involving the conduct of government officials and prominent leaders are a typical occurrence in public life. It is not unexpected that there has been a revival of interest in the study of ethics. This research analyzes the ethical challenges faced by organizations, as shown in the film Snowden (2016). This assignment aims to identify two ethical issues, describe their background, and articulate several ethical perspectives. In the examination, the problem of the whistleblower and the development of the two contentious initiatives, “Epic Shelter” and “Heartbeat”, appear as the most critical ethical difficulties. The consequence-based reasoning theory analyzes the characters’ actions in analyzing and contextualizing ethical problems. Ethics usually guide people to tell the truth, uphold their commitments, and assist those in need. A framework of ethics underpins our everyday lives, showing us away from unjust results and helping us make informed choices.
Summary of Snowden (2016)
In Snowden (2016), Joseph Gordon-Levitt portrays Edward Snowden, a subcontractor for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and whistleblower who stole and exposed sensitive National Security documents. Snowden becomes aware that a virtual mountain of data is being compiled to monitor all types of digital communication. As depicted in Snowden (2016), disillusioned with the intelligence community, the National Security Agency’s top contractor, Edward, resigned (Ochoa et al., 2021). Snowden becomes a traitor to some, a hero to others, and a fugitive from the police when he chooses to release this sensitive material (Kelly, 2022). Later, Snowden decided to donate his expertise in technology and programming to the US government by building software called ‘Epic Shelter’ and was concurrently working on a new program under the “Heartbeat” project. Depending on the perspective of the interpretation, Snowden’s actions may be seen as morally dubious.
Ethical Dilemmas in Snowden
The Whistleblower Dilemma
Snowden confronts the dilemma of a whistleblower by continuing to work for the corporation while knowing that international and domestic unlawful surveillance occurs. He feels obligated to reveal everything to the vast US and global audience (Potolsky, 2019). As an insider, his whistleblower operations that the United States government illegally surveilled the private information of both US people and non-US persons. Snowden is worried that the program captures confidential information without reason or authorization. The move raises the issue of whether the government’s lawful collection of private information to provide individuals with essential services is secure.
As conceptualized in consequence-based principles, Snowden is morally justifiable since the fact that government employees may abuse data acquired without authorization suggests that anybody with access to private citizen data can do so to their damage. Such negligence indicates that the government cannot guarantee the safety and security of data stored on its computers (Eide and Kunelius, 2018). According to Snowden, the government lacked the legal power and right to acquire the same information from people (Ochoa et al., 2021). Conventionally, illegally monitoring the private conversations of persons is a violation of their privacy and a moral transgression (Haim et al., 2018). Regardless of the legitimacy of the arguments for the conduct, the unauthorized access to and public release of official material is unethical.
The Creation of Two Controversial Programs
Similarly, Edward Snowden develops two systems, “Epic Shelter” and “Heartbeat,” to assist his government in evading accountability. Snowden expects that Obama’s administration will bring more openness to government activities (Potolsky, 2019). However, there is an ethical problem since Snowden is aware that the programs are the potential to be utilized differently than intended. Still, he continues to create the agenda despite the danger of insecurity that such a platform exposes to the public.
As demonstrated, the primary intent of the project was to develop software that would enable the government to back up all vital data from the Middle East. As a result of his connection with the NSA, Snowden was aware that the covert project was intended to be shut down if any US allies turned against the US (Van der Schyff et al., 2020). Snowden created “Heartbeat,” a tool that would retrieve new and distinct headboard postings from intelligence databases (Coyne, 2019). The operation targeted the NSA, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System of the Department of Defense.
Context of the Ethical Dilemmas
Context of Whistleblower Dilemma
Edward Snowden’s original participation in developing “Epic Shelter” and “Heartbeat” and his subsequent reveal of government data breach programs as a whistleblower is morally dubious. In organizational ethics, whistleblowing is defined as a current or former employee releasing sensitive, unethical information about the company to the public (Erickson et al., 2019). Whistleblowing occurs when a person believes their company or group is involved in illegal or potentially harmful acts (Naufal et al., 2020). Therefore, whistleblowing is defined by two opposing parties arguing over the ethical boundaries of whether the activity is acceptable or bad.
As in Snowden’s case in Snowden (2016), whistleblowing is an ethical problem since it includes an individual’s firm belief that what the organization is doing is a violation of the rights of others. This indicates that the person feels ethically bound to reveal the organization’s misbehavior to avoid the resulting damage to innocent individuals (Batolas et al., 2022). In most situations, the knowledge required to make the correct choice needs an appreciation of the significance of moral rectitude and the possession of desirable qualities (Gagnon and Perron, 2020). Such ethical authority is essential, given that whistleblowing requires a person to have the fortitude to stand up to an institution.
Context of Issues with the Creation of Two Controversial Programs
Similarly, Edward Snowden used his technological expertise at the NSA to develop two systems that have the potential to be abused against a considerable number of innocent victims. Snowden is quick to self-reflect and attempts to mitigate the consequences of his professional incompetence. Throughout the film, Snowden is shown as a strong figure of integrity and dignity who maintains his moral and ethical goals and values (Prasanti et al., 2019). Edward Snowden exemplifies humanity, sacrificing everything for ethics (Brooks and Dunn, 2020). He started to doubt the NSA’s actions, which seemed immoral since they were unlawfully gathering data and conducting surveillance without a warrant on individuals (Talesh, 2018). As such, Snowden is portrayed as a highly moral, driven person whose goal includes contributing to and serving his nation.
Ethical Considerations
Consequentialism in Edward Snowden’s Actions
Edward Snowden’s actions reflect the influence of consequentialism, which examines each moral decision anew. Snowden’s impulsive action of resigning and becoming a whistleblower was to protect the public from privacy breaches. As a consequentialist, Snowden actions are justified as he views situations as only ethically desirable if it creates a more significant overall benefit than any alternative action (Hayry, 2021). Behavioral scientists have identified correlations between acts of good points of act consequentialism and their consequences (Ellis, 2019). Individuals like Snowden, motivated by consequentialism, must extensively study before taking action.
However, Snowden should appreciate that consequentialism, which includes utilitarianism and hedonism, seems appealing in theory. As Snowden experienced, some of the complexities stem from the general perception that every moral choice is a unique instance that must be thoroughly investigated (Woodard, 2019). Snowden learns that one must investigate their actions’ repercussions before making morally sound decisions (Kudlek, 2022). In certain circumstances, the adverse effects of delaying a decision exceed the positive effects of making the optimal choice. Some philosophers believe that hedonism can break down mutual trust in society. Many fear that prejudice or bias towards family or other groups would significantly impact moral decisions.
Snowden should have instead challenged management and sought to comprehend the basis for government engagement in data access and usage for security. As a consequentialist, the effect of an action on innocent people is crucial. Hence Snowden should have investigated the dangers of disclosing the government program to the public. In communication, a clarifying inquiry aims to get extra information to comprehend the topic at hand completely.
Proposed Alternative in Duty-Based Reasoning
An alternative ethical perspective would require that Edward Snowden appreciates duty-based reasoning in decision-making. Snowden must understand that in contrast to the consequentialist ethical perspective, duty-based ethics asserts that some activities are morally right or wrong regardless of the consequences they produce. Snowden should have weighed the importance of public safety about the government’s access to information without expressly alerting or asking for agreement from the people.
In effect, Snowden should have considered the manager’s best interests. In such a perspective, two extremities of the philosophical spectrum are the duty-based assumption that laws are rules and must be obeyed (Robinson, 2019). As in Snowden’s experience, in contrast to consequentialists, duty-based moralists tend to be rule-followers (Robinson and Shah, 2019). The duty-based reasoning approach, shared mostly with deontological principles, should provide Snowden with the ethical, philosophical basis for defending the organization’s interest in case there are sufficient justifications for the programs.
Snowden must understand employees’ legal obligation to their teams, organization and government. When asked why he unlawfully gathered information, Snowden answered that he sought to work with the agency so that he could expose the wrongdoings of the United States government (MacCarthy, 2020). Snowden asserts he is working for the greater interest of its residents and the globe (Gioe and Hatfield, 2021). The legislation permits the government to investigate persons suspected of terrorism with the desire and capability to inflict damage on the public.
Additional Options in Character-Based Reasoning or Virtue Ethics
Equally, Edward Snowden should understand that as an employee in distress trying to create controversial programs, character-based considerations might be one of the alternative decision-making frameworks. Snowden’s character-based perspective should emphasize challenging the government’s leadership with rogue organizations while suggesting alternative solutions (Taheri Attar et al., 2019). In virtue-based or character-based reasoning, ethics requires honesty, courage, and generosity, by which a person builds an honorable and moral character (Courant, 2020). The approach to morality based on character posits that Snowden would develop virtue through practice (Dennis and Harrison, 2021). Snowden must know the various laws and professional and ethical requirements in each circumstance to make more informed judgments.
There is a need for ethical awareness in organizations to minimize damaging conflicts. As in the Snowden case, staff must realize the importance of critical thinking, study, and sound judgment before blowing the whistle (Mason and Simmons, 2018). Trends indicate that when choosing to blow the whistle on the conduct of an employer or the government, several factors should be addressed (Abramov, 2018). Snowden should have considered if whistleblowing had moral validity (Schein, 2020). Government personnel must maintain classified information confidentiality (Kozak and Ahn, 2018). It is only proper to go public with such material when one’s complaints have not been heard and handled internally and when releasing such information would be helpful rather than harmful to society.
In character-based reasoning, the whistleblower must consider the possible repercussions of their conduct. Snowden should recognize that even though some companies embrace whistleblowing and laws have been enacted to protect whistleblowers, there are instances in which the whistleblower is penalized for their conduct (Arnold, 2019). Edward Snowden, for example, fell into trouble with the US government after releasing harmful material (Nielsen, 2020). This means that despite his belief, it was morally right to expose the government’s activities because they violated people’s right to privacy (Carvalho et al., 2018). However, government officials believed it was a criminal act that amounted to treason and that Snowden should be held accountable for his actions under the law. Edward Snowden’s actions demonstrate the feeling of responsibility required for ethical conduct in professional settings.
Conclusion
Edward Snowden is portrayed in the 2016 film Snowden as a victim of multiple ethical severe issues. As illustrated, the problem of the whistleblower and the production of the controversies “Epic Shelter” and “Heartbeat” emerge as the most exacting ethical difficulties. Snowden’s experience is typical of most workplaces, needing action at the individual, organizational, and governmental levels. This report makes several suggestions, including the need to comprehend the legal requirement, good thought on potential implications, and the growing necessity to educate personnel about professional ethics. At the organizational and governmental levels, the leadership should recognize the importance of ethics and data security in improving the quality of the work environment.
References List
Abramov, R.N. (2018) Professional ethics in the context of the sociology of professions: a review of international conceptions. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, (7), pp.87-94. Web.
Arnold, J.R. (2019) Whistleblowers, leakers, and their networks: From Snowden to Samizdat. Rowman & Littlefield.
Batolas, D., Perkovic, S. and Mitkidis, P. (2022) Psychological and Hierarchical Closeness as Opposing Factors in Whistleblowing: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, pp.1-15. Web.
Brooks, L.J., and Dunn, P. (2020) Business and professional ethics. Cengage Learning.
Carvalho, T., Correia, T. and Serra, H. (2018) Guest editorial. Professions under suspicion: what role for professional ethics and commitment in contemporary societies? Sociologia, Problemas e Práticas, (88), pp.9-25.
Courant, E.M. (2020) Cultivating character: The practical application of virtue ethics theory through philosophical coaching. California Institute of Integral Studies.
Coyne, H. (2019) The untold story of Edward Snowden’s impact on the GDPR. The Cyber Defense Review, 4(2), pp.65-80. Web.
Dennis, M. and Harrison, T. (2021) Unique ethical challenges for the 21st century: Online technology and virtue education. Journal of Moral Education, 50(3), pp.251-266. Web.
Eide, E. and Kunelius, R. (2018) Whistleblowers and journalistic ideals: Surveillance, Snowden and the meta-coverage of journalism. Northern Lights: Film & Media Studies Yearbook, 16(1), pp.75-95. Web.
Ellis, P. (2019) Ethical concepts: the meaning of consequentialism. Journal of Kidney Care, 4(5), pp.274-276. Web.
Erickson, K., Patterson, L.B. and Backhouse, SH (2019) The process is not a case of report it and stop: Athletes’ lived experience of whistleblowing on doping in sport. Sport Management Review, 22(5), pp.724-735. Web.
Gagnon, M. and Perron, A. (2020). Whistleblowing: a concept analysis. Nursing & Health Sciences, 22(2), pp.381-389. Web.
Gioe, D.V. and Hatfield, J.M. (2021) A damage assessment framework for insider threats to national security information: Edward Snowden and the Cambridge Five in comparative historical perspective. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 34(5), pp.704-738. Web.
Haim, M., Weimann, G., and Brosius, H.B. (2018) Who sets the cyber agenda? Intermedia agenda-setting online: the case of Edward Snowden’s NSA revelations. Journal of Computational Social Science, 1(2), pp.277-294.
Häyry, M. (2021) Just better utilitarianism. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 30(2), pp.343-367.
Kelly, N. (2022) Facing Surveillance: Personified Surveillance, algorithmic injustice, and the myth of big brother in post-Snowden popular culture. Surveillance & Society, 20(2), pp.172-185. Web.
Kozak, M.A., and Șahİn, S. (2018) Inferences on whistleblowing and ethical dilemmas. Anatolia: Turizm Arastirmalari Dergisi, 29(1), pp.31-38.
Kudlek, K. (2022) On the uneasy alliance between moral bioenhancement and utilitarianism. Bioethics, 36(2), pp.210-217. Web.
MacCarthy, B. (2020) Whistleblowers in the film: Studying changing representations of whistleblowers in popular cinema. Accountancy & Bedrijfskunde, (4), pp.28-43. Web.
Mason, C. and Simmons, J. (2018) Rage against the machine: moral anger in whistleblowing. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 14(3), pp.337-355.
Naufal, M., Sofia, A., Prawira, I.F.A. and Apandi, R.N. (2020) Whistleblower dilemma: Individual and situational factors in whistleblowing intention. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity, and Change, 11(12), pp.43-60. Web.
Nielsen, R.P. (2020) Reformed national security internal whistleblowing systems and external whistleblowing as countervailing ethics methods. Administration & Society, 52(5), pp.660-689. Web.
Ochoa, C.S., Gadinger, F. and Yildiz, T. (2021) Surveillance under dispute: Conceptualizing narrative legitimation politics. European Journal of International Security, 6(2), pp.210-232.
Potolsky, M. (2019) The national security sublime: On the aesthetics of government secrecy. Routledge. Web.
Prasanti, D.H., Ramadhanti, W. and Puspasari, N. (2019) Effect of independence, work experience, and competence on audit quality with professional ethics as moderating variable. Jurnal Akuntansi Aktual, 6(1), pp.223-233. Web.
Robinson, R. (2019) The management nexus of imperfect duty: Kantian views of virtuous relations, reasoned discourse, and due diligence. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(1), pp.119-136. Web.
Robinson, R. and Shah, N. (2019) Business’ environmental obligations and reasoned public discourse: A Kantian foundation for analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(4), pp.1181-1198. Web.
Schein, C. (2020) The importance of context in moral judgments. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(2), pp.207-215. Web.
Talesh, S.A. (2018) Data breach, privacy, and cyber insurance: How insurance companies act as “compliance managers” for businesses. Law & Social Inquiry, 43(2), pp.417-440. Web.
Taheri Attar, G., Pourahmadi, M. and Herati, M. (2019) An Analysis of the effect of professional ethics on organizational performance and trust through the mediating role of ethical climate. Transformation Management Journal, 11(1), pp.27-56. Web.
Van der Schyff, K., Flowerday, S. and Furnell, S. (2020) Duplicitous social media and data surveillance: An evaluation of privacy risk. Computers & Security, 94, pp.101822-101829. Web.
Woodard, C. (2019) Taking utilitarianism seriously. Oxford University Press.